We are delighted to present our report outlining the findings of our Moot Court concerning the usage of OSINT evidence in Ukrainian courts.
This fictional court hearing was initiated by Ukraine Legal Network’s Legal Team, in collaboration with OSINT Investigators from OSINT FOR UKRAINE (OFU), to gain deeper insights into the legal challenges of using open-source information as evidence in civil proceedings.
What was the case presented by the ULN team with subsequent evidentiary support by OFU?
The case concerned a fictional Mariupol resident, Mariya Ivashchuk, who was forced to leave her hometown due to Russian aggression; her apartment was damaged by shelling and later demolished by a Russian construction company following an order by the occupation authorities; this land spot was further leased to another Russian construction company to build a new house.
Since Ivashchuk lost her home due to Russian military action in Mariupol, she filed a claim to a Ukrainian court looking for compensation for the material and moral damage she suffered.
What is the importance of this fictional proceeding and how can it help Ukrainian survivors?
In order to reflect on-ground realities, our case relied on Open Source Information (OSINF) and Open Source Evidence (OSE) as the only available proof of the property destruction. This is because Ukrainian authorities do not have access to the occupied territories to verify the damage, and an owner might not have been present at the moment of or upon which the damage was done because he/she had evacuated to safety.
Therefore, in many cases, collecting data and evidence from open sources could be a legitimate tool for victims who otherwise struggle to substantiate their cases.
Key Takeaways
One of the key takeaways from this Moot Court is the nuanced distinction in Ukrainian procedural legislation between expertise and specialisation in OSINT.
Unlike accredited forensic or legal experts, OSINT practitioners often lack formal recognition despite their practical experience—raising questions about the admissibility of their findings in court. This challenge is especially relevant in Ukraine, where only registered experts can testify, and others must qualify as specialists.
Therefore, further research is needed on whether such limitations could restrict the role of open-source investigations in legal cases.
Read the full report of our Moot Court project below.
